When the American people are convinced there are only 2 viable parties, all they have to do is make sure a monster is running to force you to vote for the “lesser evil”.

Both the Democratic and Republican parties are PRIVATE ORGANIZATIONS with PRIVATE FUNDING and extremely un-democratic rules.

This was undeniably proven in 1935, the case of Grovey v. Townsend, where the US Supreme Court ruled that the Democratic Party was a private organization with the ability to set its own rules.

So now we have 2 private organizations that use our tax dollars to hold primary elections, but do not have to follow democratic rules for conducting those elections. Then they have deals with news and media organizations (often owned by the same people) to only publicize their chosen candidates – which ensures only their candidates gain momentum and rise in the polls.

They also then hold televised debates where only their chosen candidates are invited – thus further convincing the public that there are only 2 choices, and thereby forcing you to vote for their one choice by ensuring one choice is slightly less evil than the other.

The only way to break the 2 party system is to ignore it and vote 3rd party.

Do Not Be Intimidated

Vote based on your values, not based on peer pressure.

More than any other election, we feel so much pressure to vote – in a negative sense. Nearly everyone we talk to tries to guilt us by saying if you don’t vote for Clinton, then you’re responsible if Trump wins. Or they tell you that any vote for a 3rd party candidate is a “protest vote”.

This is such brainwashed and propagandized thinking, yet it’s also very effective.

So let’s dissect that statement for a minute: Is it irresponsible of you to use your vote “selfishly” for a candidate you truly believe in, even if that candidate has little or no chance of winning? In order to answer this question, we need to apply such a statement to another situation:

Let’s say 2 criminals are each holding a child hostage. One has kidnapped a Mexican child and the other an Arabic child. They are both demanding that you send them money or they will kill the child they have. You only have enough money to satisfy one of them, and you have to choose which one to support. Meanwhile, a 3rd person quietly gets a message to you that they are launching a rescue mission to try and save both children, and they want you to send your money to them instead.

None of your friends believe this 3rd person can actually save either child, and they believe that you should give your money to at least save one child. Time is running out, but you are working to research this 3rd person despite the guilt and insults from your friends. Which option would you choose?

Personally, I would choose giving my money to the person who wants to save both children. Even if that person failed, I would know that I supported the person working for the most good instead of just the least bad. I could weigh up in my mind whether I prefer Arabs or Mexicans all I want, but in the end, I don’t want to support anyone who I feel is destructive. Instead, I feel I have an obligation to support those who are taking the hard road and attempting to truly do good in such a messed up world.

So that’s my two cents on who I would vote for. Your choice is truly up to you, so don’t let anyone try to guilt you into choosing one way or another. You’re not responsible for the choices laid before you. Your only responsibility is to not give in to fear and intimidation.